This was really good, balanced understanding of many different positions. I just wanna say its weird to say Milton ''blamed the government' for the depression, that's more of an Austrian position, Miltons words if I recall correctly were 'the fed failed to *prevent* the depression'
It's very important to remember that in Hayeks day unions wanted much more than just better wages and working conditions. They wanted to control what could be produced, how much could be produced etc. Just look at the unions demand against Ford near the Ford hunger march etc.
Quinn Slobodian. Globalists. Analysis of how neoliberalism was developed as an ideology. Great book but not exactly about Keynes. I think there could be a separate book on Keynes theories though that would make a great companion.
Keynes wasn’t familiar enough with the works of Walras, Pareto, Wicksell or Bohm Bawerk to understand Hayek’s criticism of the Tract, so he had his friend Piero Sraffa (who took a course from Hayek at LSE) write an article titled “Doctor Hayek on Money and Capital,” which was considered by most a fatal blow to the theory. In Sraffa’s book (1960, ch. 6), the lynchpin of measuring capital for the Austrians (time preference and the average period of production) is totally leveled as well.
I’ve been reading about Hayek’s theories and the one that struck me as particularly narrow minded was his belief that a person’s success in life comes down to their individual skills and luck, therefore there is nothing that any outside influencer can do to impact that success. But I can refute that easily. If you are born in lets say inner city Baltimore, your chances of success are far lower than if you were born in the Hamptons. You can chalk this up to luck, as you are lucky to be born in the Hamptons and unlucky to be born in Baltimore, but that doesn’t mean that there can be no outside influence on this. The government can invest in the education, health and nutrition of children, which will vastly improve the luck of the child born in Baltimore, and thus improve his chances of success in life. That in turn improves the economy as you are increasing the pool of potential innovators in your society. His entire world view is built on this flawed belief. He does a great job of building out his economic theory from that point, but it is still built on a flawed foundation.
Reading what you posted here, as an objective observer who honestly is struck by your apparent and obvious inability to recognize the flaws in your own argument- 1st your assuming that government can effectively improve the luck of a child born in Baltimore when socialist governmental policy clearly demonstrates that it isn't the case in current day Baltimore which fyi already has policies that pretend to invest in the education, health and nutrition of children. You can of course pretend that the policies as they are currently in Baltimore aren't/weren't socialist enough or are being defeated by capitalism in some undefined manner, but the evidence that socialism produced by the democratic process can't solve whatever troubles Baltimore already exists. 2nd and perhaps most importantly you have completely ignored time(of birth, in program in your luck equation) as a factor in your government can invest in the education, health and nutrition of children as if said government policies can't ever fail to deliver promised results, which is honestly very democratic socialist progressive view of government in the first place. At what point does luck in both time and place in your scenario that government can invest in the education, health and nutrition of children and actually produce successful results start to matter? Perhaps and honestly this is just pure spitballing here, socialistic governmental policies don't actually work in societies where culture and existing government messaging/policy encourages a lack of commitment towards improving one's economic plight? You will likely appeal to European models of democratic socialism as if their policies weren't built upon a foundation of their convenient reliance upon the US to defend their economic interests on the world stage via NATO in the first place for which the US taxpayer has received no remuneration for nearly 70 years. Or completely ignore the homogenous culture and nature of Europeans as well, because honestly European socialism is already failing in the immigrant communities which were allowed to accumulate because native Europeans had been failing to reproduce themselves in manner that will continue to sustain their own socialistic governmental policies.
@@chucklindenberg1093 Please tell me an education system anywhere in the world that is a good example of the free market in action. No government investment, just privately funded. I'll wait.
@@TheCommonS3Nse And there it is typical leftist progressive intellectual dishonesty fyi I am not suggesting that an education system doesn't see any benefits from government entitlement programs for education centers. The problem is your reply is typical of socialist progressives like yourself, who refuse to admit that a given socialistic progressive program isn't having the results that were suggested by the designers of said socialistic progressive program So I can only conclude you were educated by socialist progressive programs to the point that you can't actually think for yourself, but you can of course "wait" for wisdom I suppose. Also US Dept of Ed as well the Maryland Dept of Ed's budget has increased by orders of magnitude since their inceptions and yet education in low income Baltimore schools is still getting worse.
If true, it would be shocking that even in China neoclassical econ approaches dominate. This shows how deep in trouble we are we Marxists and Marxian economists. A revival of Marxist economics and a serious attempt at innovation and completion of the Marxist project of those 6 volumes of his work is key.
I feel like I'm going crazy. I cannot understand for the life of me how these economists can pretend they're doing science? And there's verrrrrryyyyy little on the internet about challenging the foundation for modern economics
22:00 Hayek says that the problem are young people who are socialistic in general. And it is necessary to teach them that in capitalism morally low people will get more than they deserve and morally high people will mostly fail. And it is necessary to teach young people that this notion is good
I've been doing International political economy for years now. One issue I have is that this school was created because of these problems of neoclassical economics and hayekian assumptions. As Susan strange commented in on her works. Sadly today it's just become a different strain of neoclassical dogma
Thanks for the shout out in the beginning of your talk, even if it's a tad uncharitable. The Keynes vs. Hayek rap videos were not actually funded by Charles or David Koch, though I'd be fine if they were. About 200 different donors supported them, and I'm deeply thankful to those folks for supporting the work. The new Mises vs. Marx video is a project I created with AIER through their endowment. I think like my fellow filmmakers across the ideological spectrum, we seek out support from those who believe in our approach to exploring ideas. That's what we've done with the raps and I hope everyone enjoys them. Lord Robert Skidelsky said that portrayal of Keynes was "not a complete portrayal of Keynes, but completely correct". I'll stand by that endorsement of Russ Roberts and my presentation. I really enjoyed our conversation and for anyone interested, we posted that conversation on my podcast. Google "anwar shaikh emergent order podcast" and you can listen to the whole fun, warm and intellectually sprawling exchange. Next time, I hope you'll accept the video interview invitation! It'll be even more fun!
Had you read Das Kapital before corporate think tanks funded you to make that video? Or perhaps over the course of it? Because it really seems like you didn't, at all. The apparent willing ignorance makes the entire project appear like it was an ideologically motivated smear.
There are some errors in ideas about Socialism: * The main mistake is the classical interpretation of the Labor Theory of Value by Marx: - Although value is described as a social relationship, it is treated like an object. - The value is considered to be produced on the production side of the commodity society. But there is no value there, not even according to Marx. According to Marx, a (initially only potential) commodity only becomes a commodity when its use value becomes use value for others through exchange (!). Only then the work expended on it is qualified as socially useful and only then as value-creating. Before that there was only one expected value on the production side of the commodity society. This is formed from the costs incurred to manufacture the work product and from an expected surplus value that appears sufficient (or, in difficult situations, but not usually or in very good situations as makeble). The Marx’s value formula must be adapted for the production side of the commodity society: W|expected = c|cost factor; replacement expected + v|cost factor; replacement expected + s|expected. The social usefulness of the work product is only made clear when it is bought on the market. A buyer can only pay surplus value on the market, but only if he fully reimburses the costs c + v beforehand. According to Marx, surplus value, in turn, is a component of value. Consequently, for this reason too, the value can only be established on the market. The value formula for the market side of the commodity society: W|real = c|cost replacement + v|cost replacement + m|real. Value is a social relationship, a relationship between people. Such is formed between people and only works there, the value between exchange partners. Value is the quantified abstract social usefulness of goods. If a work product, a natural good etc. is not sold, it remains the property of the owner and is therefore not socially useful and so no value is given related to it - private work is not “value creating”. - Since, according to Marx, value is produced, the classic interpretation of the LTV does not capture the importance of the market for value forming. The creation of value in the market is important for the efficiency of society. Under Socialism this was ignored and the entire economy was made inefficient until the system collapsed. Efficiency is not to be equated with maximum production output, because it contains all political requirements, e.g. for environmental relief. * Another mistake in the classics of Marxism: It is said that the working class will take power and shape a true democratic society. Practice has shown and shows that dictatorships, some of them extremely bad, were always established. This is because the working class cannot take power, it has to work. As a result, there are always “doers” who do this “on their behalf. And they are afraid of losing power, so they will always shape a dictatorship. I experienced this myself in the GDR and in present-day Germany this is happening again through the Left, the Greens, the Reds and the Blacks (who were transformed into socialist by Mrs. Merkel): They dictate mass migration, they dictate energy ideology and destroy the country's energy supply (that has nothing to do with “green energy”), they have brought the media under control - as once in the GDR, real problems are not allowed to be reported be violence by refugees, the full cost of migration, its impact on the future of society; They have the judiciary, as once in the GDR, politically oriented in matters of migration - migrants are allowed to do practically anything. Anyone who takes action against it, they try to push out of their jobs. The dictatorship is also being expanded at the universities (Allensbach study), and I have seen it myself several times; In schools, teachers no longer dare to speak their minds. The left has no concept of preventing this dictatorship, it is inherent in it.
@@DemocracyandSocialism Hi, I have seen your video now and it confirms my belief that socialism must always lead to dictatorship. I have put a detailed comment under the video.
In Volume 1 Marx assumes for analysis that all products are sold at value in the market, Marx covers the market side in Volumes 2 and 3 of Capital, this is where you get into his famous transformation tables to cope with market oscillations. Shaikh has excellent coverage of it in his book which I highly recommend. You make a mistake in claiming 'Value is the quantified abstract social usefulness of goods.' This confuses the everyday concept of value as something valuable with the technical use of the term by Marx which is 'socially necessary labor time.' In general commodity production and market exchange the supply and demand of goods is roughly equal over a period of 5-10 years. The difference in value and therefore price of a commodity relates not to a social relationship per se but the amount of aggregate labor hours it takes to produce the product on average among firms who sell in the same market. Shaikh shows that something like 7% of price differentials through business cycles relates to the market (supply/demand) with the remaining being price of production which is another way of explaining aggregate labor times. Value is therefore a much more objective measure than you indicate. Can't recommend Shaikh's book enough or his lecture series where he goes through the book. The left is responsible for having any democracy at all as well as not having working conditions like they have in southeast Asia. You're welcome.
@@justinlevy274 Many thanks for the answer! They assume a purely objective value that can allegedly be produced. But such a value would be independent of people. In reality, value is a social relationship, i.e. a relation between people. Such a relationship cannot be produced. Work can only create prerequisites for value relationships. In the market it is decided for which work results value relationships and thus values are formed and also how they are formed. The difference in value cannot relate directly to the total working hours, since nonsense can also be produced in working hours. Production can also be inefficient - Marx responded to this. The transformation tables you mentioned cannot work because the surplus value cannot be calculated from the effort. It cannot even be determined on the basis of the work done whether the work results will be sold at all, which, however, would be necessary for value formation. The results of such “conversions” are always (!) estimated values. I point out what is wrong with Marx, especially in the passages that you take as evidence for your interpretation of the LTV. However, you skip the passages that do not fit your theory: - A work product only becomes a commodity if it becomes a use value for others through exchange. This exchange is carried out on the market. - Only socially useful work creates value. What is socially useful, that is to say useful to society, is determined in the market by the surrender of an equivalent value in exchange for the labor product. Work that is not socially useful remains in the “private work” stage, since the work products remain in the property or do not become use values for others through exchange. In addition to my video “What is wrong with the LTV - How the value is really formed” (ruclips.net/video/3GHutT-8blc/видео.html), I am currently creating a short video in which I, among other things, look at the average working hours required by society enter. That should be online shortly. To dictatorship The left only cares for democracy on the basis of its theory. In practice, the left (including the Greens, many of whom emerged from communist movements) always implement a dictatorship. In Germany this can currently be felt to a frightening degree: the media are synchronized; the judiciary has become politically oriented (particularly in relation to migrant violence); unwanted election results are reversed; People who are not “in line” are pushed out of their offices; the security organs are "cleaned up"; At universities, in schools, even in daycare centers, freedom of expression is severely restricted and indoctrinated more and more intensely - I know what I'm talking about, I've already experienced this for a very long time in the GDR. I am not saying that capitalism represents a good society, but the left dictatorship in connection with the lack of understanding of the economy among the left always leads to economic decline. As a result, the rulers are repeatedly "forced" to tighten their dictatorship.
Hayek philosophically sounds like Hobbes but replaces the person of the monarch with the impersonal market.
This was really good, balanced understanding of many different positions. I just wanna say its weird to say Milton ''blamed the government' for the depression, that's more of an Austrian position, Miltons words if I recall correctly were 'the fed failed to *prevent* the depression'
A distinction without much of a difference.
@@GWFHegel-ms7gz well he was saying 'the government didnt do enough' while austrians say 'it did too much'
It's very important to remember that in Hayeks day unions wanted much more than just better wages and working conditions. They wanted to control what could be produced, how much could be produced etc. Just look at the unions demand against Ford near the Ford hunger march etc.
12:57 does any one have the link he mentioned about Krugman's lecture?
I saw it on Tube not long ago.
@@ese3go title or link?
@@hughshux7960 Ihave to search for it too. This has been a fascinating lecture!
@@ese3go Could you please look for it in your historial and share it please?
@@hughshux7960 I have tried to find it to no avail. Sorry.
can you provide the link to Krugman's repudiation
5:50 There is no role of money/financial sectors in the models of Central Bankers! BoE could not explain it when asked
43:00 anyone know where i can find keynes's critique of hayek or a book that touches the subject. Thanks
Quinn Slobodian. Globalists. Analysis of how neoliberalism was developed as an ideology. Great book but not exactly about Keynes. I think there could be a separate book on Keynes theories though that would make a great companion.
Keynes wasn’t familiar enough with the works of Walras, Pareto, Wicksell or Bohm Bawerk to understand Hayek’s criticism of the Tract, so he had his friend Piero Sraffa (who took a course from Hayek at LSE) write an article titled “Doctor Hayek on Money and Capital,” which was considered by most a fatal blow to the theory. In Sraffa’s book (1960, ch. 6), the lynchpin of measuring capital for the Austrians (time preference and the average period of production) is totally leveled as well.
I’ve been reading about Hayek’s theories and the one that struck me as particularly narrow minded was his belief that a person’s success in life comes down to their individual skills and luck, therefore there is nothing that any outside influencer can do to impact that success. But I can refute that easily. If you are born in lets say inner city Baltimore, your chances of success are far lower than if you were born in the Hamptons. You can chalk this up to luck, as you are lucky to be born in the Hamptons and unlucky to be born in Baltimore, but that doesn’t mean that there can be no outside influence on this. The government can invest in the education, health and nutrition of children, which will vastly improve the luck of the child born in Baltimore, and thus improve his chances of success in life. That in turn improves the economy as you are increasing the pool of potential innovators in your society.
His entire world view is built on this flawed belief. He does a great job of building out his economic theory from that point, but it is still built on a flawed foundation.
Reading what you posted here, as an objective observer who honestly is struck by your apparent and obvious inability to recognize the flaws in your own argument-
1st your assuming that government can effectively improve the luck of a child born in Baltimore when socialist governmental policy clearly demonstrates that it isn't the case in current day Baltimore which fyi already has policies that pretend to invest in the education, health and nutrition of children. You can of course pretend that the policies as they are currently in Baltimore aren't/weren't socialist enough or are being defeated by capitalism in some undefined manner, but the evidence that socialism produced by the democratic process can't solve whatever troubles Baltimore already exists.
2nd and perhaps most importantly you have completely ignored time(of birth, in program in your luck equation) as a factor in your government can invest in the education, health and nutrition of children as if said government policies can't ever fail to deliver promised results, which is honestly very democratic socialist progressive view of government in the first place. At what point does luck in both time and place in your scenario that government can invest in the education, health and nutrition of children and actually produce successful results start to matter? Perhaps and honestly this is just pure spitballing here, socialistic governmental policies don't actually work in societies where culture and existing government messaging/policy encourages a lack of commitment towards improving one's economic plight?
You will likely appeal to European models of democratic socialism as if their policies weren't built upon a foundation of their convenient reliance upon the US to defend their economic interests on the world stage via NATO in the first place for which the US taxpayer has received no remuneration for nearly 70 years. Or completely ignore the homogenous culture and nature of Europeans as well, because honestly European socialism is already failing in the immigrant communities which were allowed to accumulate because native Europeans had been failing to reproduce themselves in manner that will continue to sustain their own socialistic governmental policies.
@@chucklindenberg1093
Please tell me an education system anywhere in the world that is a good example of the free market in action. No government investment, just privately funded.
I'll wait.
@@TheCommonS3Nse And there it is typical leftist progressive intellectual dishonesty fyi I am not suggesting that an education system doesn't see any benefits from government entitlement programs for education centers.
The problem is your reply is typical of socialist progressives like yourself, who refuse to admit that a given socialistic progressive program isn't having the results that were suggested by the designers of said socialistic progressive program
So I can only conclude you were educated by socialist progressive programs to the point that you can't actually think for yourself, but you can of course "wait" for wisdom I suppose.
Also US Dept of Ed as well the Maryland Dept of Ed's budget has increased by orders of magnitude since their inceptions and yet education in low income Baltimore schools is still getting worse.
@@chucklindenberg1093Has government-funded education surpassed private education?
@@GWFHegel-ms7gz I don't know has government-funded education surpassed private education?
If true, it would be shocking that even in China neoclassical econ approaches dominate. This shows how deep in trouble we are we Marxists and Marxian economists.
A revival of Marxist economics and a serious attempt at innovation and completion of the Marxist project of those 6 volumes of his work is key.
I feel like I'm going crazy. I cannot understand for the life of me how these economists can pretend they're doing science?
And there's verrrrrryyyyy little on the internet about challenging the foundation for modern economics
22:00 Hayek says that the problem are young people who are socialistic in general. And it is necessary to teach them that in capitalism morally low people will get more than they deserve and morally high people will mostly fail. And it is necessary to teach young people that this notion is good
I've been doing International political economy for years now. One issue I have is that this school was created because of these problems of neoclassical economics and hayekian assumptions. As Susan strange commented in on her works. Sadly today it's just become a different strain of neoclassical dogma
Thanks for the shout out in the beginning of your talk, even if it's a tad uncharitable. The Keynes vs. Hayek rap videos were not actually funded by Charles or David Koch, though I'd be fine if they were. About 200 different donors supported them, and I'm deeply thankful to those folks for supporting the work. The new Mises vs. Marx video is a project I created with AIER through their endowment. I think like my fellow filmmakers across the ideological spectrum, we seek out support from those who believe in our approach to exploring ideas. That's what we've done with the raps and I hope everyone enjoys them. Lord Robert Skidelsky said that portrayal of Keynes was "not a complete portrayal of Keynes, but completely correct". I'll stand by that endorsement of Russ Roberts and my presentation.
I really enjoyed our conversation and for anyone interested, we posted that conversation on my podcast. Google "anwar shaikh emergent order podcast" and you can listen to the whole fun, warm and intellectually sprawling exchange. Next time, I hope you'll accept the video interview invitation! It'll be even more fun!
podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/anwar-shaikh/id1464253461?i=1000457833048
Had you read Das Kapital before corporate think tanks funded you to make that video? Or perhaps over the course of it?
Because it really seems like you didn't, at all. The apparent willing ignorance makes the entire project appear like it was an ideologically motivated smear.
There are some errors in ideas about Socialism:
* The main mistake is the classical interpretation of the Labor Theory of Value by Marx:
- Although value is described as a social relationship, it is treated like an object.
- The value is considered to be produced on the production side of the commodity society.
But there is no value there, not even according to Marx.
According to Marx, a (initially only potential) commodity only becomes a commodity when its use value becomes use value for others through exchange (!). Only then the work expended on it is qualified as socially useful and only then as value-creating.
Before that there was only one expected value on the production side of the commodity society. This is formed from the costs incurred to manufacture the work product and from an expected surplus value that appears sufficient (or, in difficult situations, but not usually or in very good situations as makeble). The Marx’s value formula must be adapted for the production side of the commodity society:
W|expected = c|cost factor; replacement expected + v|cost factor; replacement expected + s|expected.
The social usefulness of the work product is only made clear when it is bought on the market. A buyer can only pay surplus value on the market, but only if he fully reimburses the costs c + v beforehand. According to Marx, surplus value, in turn, is a component of value. Consequently, for this reason too, the value can only be established on the market.
The value formula for the market side of the commodity society:
W|real = c|cost replacement + v|cost replacement + m|real.
Value is a social relationship, a relationship between people. Such is formed between people and only works there, the value between exchange partners.
Value is the quantified abstract social usefulness of goods.
If a work product, a natural good etc. is not sold, it remains the property of the owner and is therefore not socially useful and so no value is given related to it - private work is not “value creating”.
- Since, according to Marx, value is produced, the classic interpretation of the LTV does not capture the importance of the market for value forming.
The creation of value in the market is important for the efficiency of society.
Under Socialism this was ignored and the entire economy was made inefficient until the system collapsed.
Efficiency is not to be equated with maximum production output, because it contains all political requirements, e.g. for environmental relief.
* Another mistake in the classics of Marxism: It is said that the working class will take power and shape a true democratic society.
Practice has shown and shows that dictatorships, some of them extremely bad, were always established.
This is because the working class cannot take power, it has to work.
As a result, there are always “doers” who do this “on their behalf. And they are afraid of losing power, so they will always shape a dictatorship.
I experienced this myself in the GDR and in present-day Germany this is happening again through the Left, the Greens, the Reds and the Blacks (who were transformed into socialist by Mrs. Merkel):
They dictate mass migration, they dictate energy ideology and destroy the country's energy supply (that has nothing to do with “green energy”), they have brought the media under control - as once in the GDR, real problems are not allowed to be reported be violence by refugees, the full cost of migration, its impact on the future of society; They have the judiciary, as once in the GDR, politically oriented in matters of migration - migrants are allowed to do practically anything.
Anyone who takes action against it, they try to push out of their jobs.
The dictatorship is also being expanded at the universities (Allensbach study), and I have seen it myself several times; In schools, teachers no longer dare to speak their minds.
The left has no concept of preventing this dictatorship, it is inherent in it.
Thank you for your comments. On the issue of Dictatorship, please see the following session in the series: ruclips.net/video/efzJG_4Qu5o/видео.html
@@DemocracyandSocialism Thanks for your answer!
OK, I will try to get the 100 minutes video!
@@DemocracyandSocialism Hi, I have seen your video now and it confirms my belief that socialism must always lead to dictatorship.
I have put a detailed comment under the video.
In Volume 1 Marx assumes for analysis that all products are sold at value in the market, Marx covers the market side in Volumes 2 and 3 of Capital, this is where you get into his famous transformation tables to cope with market oscillations. Shaikh has excellent coverage of it in his book which I highly recommend. You make a mistake in claiming 'Value is the quantified abstract social usefulness of goods.' This confuses the everyday concept of value as something valuable with the technical use of the term by Marx which is 'socially necessary labor time.' In general commodity production and market exchange the supply and demand of goods is roughly equal over a period of 5-10 years. The difference in value and therefore price of a commodity relates not to a social relationship per se but the amount of aggregate labor hours it takes to produce the product on average among firms who sell in the same market. Shaikh shows that something like 7% of price differentials through business cycles relates to the market (supply/demand) with the remaining being price of production which is another way of explaining aggregate labor times. Value is therefore a much more objective measure than you indicate. Can't recommend Shaikh's book enough or his lecture series where he goes through the book.
The left is responsible for having any democracy at all as well as not having working conditions like they have in southeast Asia. You're welcome.
@@justinlevy274
Many thanks for the answer!
They assume a purely objective value that can allegedly be produced.
But such a value would be independent of people.
In reality, value is a social relationship, i.e. a relation between people.
Such a relationship cannot be produced.
Work can only create prerequisites for value relationships. In the market it is decided for which work results value relationships and thus values are formed and also how they are formed.
The difference in value cannot relate directly to the total working hours, since nonsense can also be produced in working hours. Production can also be inefficient - Marx responded to this.
The transformation tables you mentioned cannot work because the surplus value cannot be calculated from the effort. It cannot even be determined on the basis of the work done whether the work results will be sold at all, which, however, would be necessary for value formation.
The results of such “conversions” are always (!) estimated values.
I point out what is wrong with Marx, especially in the passages that you take as evidence for your interpretation of the LTV. However, you skip the passages that do not fit your theory:
- A work product only becomes a commodity if it becomes a use value for others through exchange.
This exchange is carried out on the market.
- Only socially useful work creates value. What is socially useful, that is to say useful to society, is determined in the market by the surrender of an equivalent value in exchange for the labor product.
Work that is not socially useful remains in the “private work” stage, since the work products remain in the property or do not become use values for others through exchange.
In addition to my video “What is wrong with the LTV - How the value is really formed” (ruclips.net/video/3GHutT-8blc/видео.html), I am currently creating a short video in which I, among other things, look at the average working hours required by society enter. That should be online shortly.
To dictatorship
The left only cares for democracy on the basis of its theory. In practice, the left (including the Greens, many of whom emerged from communist movements) always implement a dictatorship.
In Germany this can currently be felt to a frightening degree: the media are synchronized; the judiciary has become politically oriented (particularly in relation to migrant violence); unwanted election results are reversed; People who are not “in line” are pushed out of their offices; the security organs are "cleaned up"; At universities, in schools, even in daycare centers, freedom of expression is severely restricted and indoctrinated more and more intensely - I know what I'm talking about, I've already experienced this for a very long time in the GDR.
I am not saying that capitalism represents a good society, but the left dictatorship in connection with the lack of understanding of the economy among the left always leads to economic decline. As a result, the rulers are repeatedly "forced" to tighten their dictatorship.